Talk:Gcore
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Suggestions for improvement
[edit]I'd like to have more suggestions for improvement on the page Gcore. Corden80 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
TV network RT
[edit]@Corden80: You reverted my addition of the text "Until April 2023, Gcore supported the distribution of the TV network RT, which has been under sanctions by the EU since March 2022.[1]" without comment. Why did you revert it? Nuretok (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- The information is not correct. It is a defamatory allegation Corden80 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- The source (Correctiv) says it is true. How do you know that it is incorrect? Nuretok (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- The article also reported that it was a suspicion. In addition, "GCore denies all allegations." Could you provide additional "corroborating evidence" for this? Corden80 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Correctiv describes some parts as suspicions ("Außerdem deutet vieles darauf hin, dass GCore es RT bis heute ermöglicht, sein Live-Programm weltweit zu verbreiten." -> "Moreover, there is much to suggest that GCore enables RT to distribute its live programming worldwide to this day."), but others are pretty clear ("Belegen können wir das bis Ende April 2023." -> "We can prove this until the end of April 2023."). I fully understand that some parts are speculation. Therefore, I added only hard statements to the article.
- Yes, GCore denies the allegations. If you like we can add the following to my sentence: "GCore denies all accusations and condemns the 'unjustifiable Russian invasion of Ukraine'."
- Additional evidence is, for example, an older article by Correctiv and the article on the page of the cooperation partner Tageszeitung. Nuretok (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Did you notice that both news "Correctiv" and "Taz" basically wrote the same content word for word? One of them copying the other? Please could you bring a piece of real corroborating evidence from an authoritative source? Not a source that reported word for word from the other. Corden80 (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the text is the same because the cooperated. I'll try to summarize: There are two reputable german news outlets (Correctiv and Tageszeitung) which have cooperated (, ) twice (, ) to report about the matter. I propose that we add the following text to the article and if other reporting comes up we can still add it. I have also tried to include your concerns:
- Correctiv and Tageszeitung reported that Gcore supported the distribution of the TV network RT until April 2023, which has been under sanctions by the EU since March 2022. However, GCore denies the accusations.[2][3] Nuretok (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Did you notice that both news "Correctiv" and "Taz" basically wrote the same content word for word? One of them copying the other? Please could you bring a piece of real corroborating evidence from an authoritative source? Not a source that reported word for word from the other. Corden80 (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- The article also reported that it was a suspicion. In addition, "GCore denies all allegations." Could you provide additional "corroborating evidence" for this? Corden80 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- The source (Correctiv) says it is true. How do you know that it is incorrect? Nuretok (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
References
- ↑ "Warum Russia Today trotz Sanktionen in Europa weiterläuft". Correctiv (in German). 2023-07-14. Retrieved 2023-07-16.
- ↑ "Warum Russia Today trotz Sanktionen in Europa weiterläuft". Correctiv (in German). 2023-07-14. Retrieved 2023-07-16.
- ↑ Fromm, Anne (2023-07-14). "Russische Propaganda in Europa: Hütchenspieler für Russia Today". Die Tageszeitung: taz (in German). ISSN 0931-9085. Retrieved 2023-07-20.
Update: later sources regarding RT allegations (2023)
[edit]In the 2023 discussion above, the inclusion of the RT-related content was debated based on reporting available at the time (Correctiv / taz), with questions raised about corroboration, certainty, and wording.
Since then, there appear to be later independent sources addressing the same allegations. In particular: • Reporting in Luxemburger Wort (Aug 2023) states that Luxembourg authorities found no sanctions violations. • A parliamentary question and response from 2023 indicate that the matter was reviewed together with CIRCL and closed, with no evidence of commercial, technical, or organizational links to sanctioned entities.
Given Wikipedia’s emphasis on up-to-date sourcing and due weight, it may be worth reassessing whether the current standalone “Controversies” section still accurately reflects the state of reliable sources, or whether it should be revised, condensed, or updated to reflect these later findings.
I’m flagging this here for review by uninvolved editors.
- Luxemburger Wort (Aug 2023), Marco Meng
- Luxembourg Parliamentary Question No. 8157 (2023)
Warning box removal
[edit]I am convinced the warning box (The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations) can be removed. PS Halper (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)